An Examination of The U.S. Military Intervention Against the Islamic State in Iraq

Abstract

This article focuses on the politics of U.S. intervention against the Islamic State. In the last two decades after the 9\11, the U.S. intervened in many countries in different ways. For example, the U.S. forces and its allies fully intervened in Afghanistan in 2001 and in Iraq in 2003. After the dynamic changes in the Middle East and the era of Arab spring the intervention has changed in different way. Especially when the terrorist organizations rose the U.S. has repeated the same way used in the Kosovo war (1999) against the Islamic State, which has not fully intervened. U.S. public opinion plays a great role in U.S. politics. Regional and international relations between countries are crucial. It will be worth addressing Turkey, Iran, and Kurdish forces in regional considerations because all of them have a border with the Islamic State. Besides, the IS directly and indirectly, has impacted on them. In international considerations, the U.S. usually makes a coalition and alliance to intervene in countries and groups. The purpose of the study is to understand the politics of U.S. intervention against the Islamic State. This article examines it from three perspectives: firstly, a change in the U.S. policy of intervention; secondly, the U.S. domestic political considerations; thirdly, Regional and International considerations. Following this evaluation, this study answering the question: Why has the U.S. not fully intervened against the Islamic State? This research concludes that the U.S. should change its policy of intervention from one time to another. The U.S. should change its military tactics from one war to another war. The American government should understand how its domestic politics and other countries feel about the politics of U.S. intervention against I.S. ultimately; it appears that the politics of U.S. intervention are complex. However, there is still a way to understand it.